“Only one in three Canadians trusts Parliament. The Liberals are convincing Conservative and NDP members to join them so they can get a majority. I am asking my colleague if he thinks this hurts people's trust in our democracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, only one in three people in Canada have confidence in its institutions, including Parliament. Given the Liberals’ tactics for poaching members from both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party in order to secure a majority, this is by no means a run-of-the-mill situation. It is the first time this has happened in Canadian history. I would like my colleague’s thoughts on something. Does he think that the public will gain or lose trust in institutions when they fail to respect the will of the people as democratically expressed in elections?”

“The government is ignoring our traditions. It has a very small majority in the House, but it gave itself too many seats on committees. I want to know when a government has ever done this before.”

“Mr. Speaker, the members opposite can say what they will, but we are dealing with a government that no longer has the slightest regard for our parliamentary traditions. It started in the previous Parliament, when the government decided to change the rules of how the House operates without unanimous consent. Today, they are telling us that it is normal for a majority government to have a majority on committees. That is true, but I asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons a question, and he was unable to answer. I would like my colleague to tell me when, in the recent history of the House, a government with a very slim majority decided to give itself a supermajority on committees. I would like him to tell me whether it is not more in keeping with the traditions of the House for a government’s majority on committees to be proportional and similar to the one it has in the House of Commons.”

“The member's question is off topic. House rules say questions must stay on topic, and I want the Speaker to rule on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I say this with all due respect for the historical events the member is referring to, but we are debating a time allocation motion. I think it is written in the Standing Orders that we must not ask questions that are off topic. That is in the Standing Orders, and this is not a point of debate. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to make a ruling on this.”

“The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats on committees. I want the member to explain why the Liberals are giving themselves more power than they actually have.”

“Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my colleague said that the parties’ representation on committees must reflect their representation in the House. The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats in committees. Can my colleague explain to me how she can say in her speech that she wants committees to operate like the House, when in reality, the Liberals are giving themselves much more power with this new majority that they engineered by enticing floor crossers?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 43 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →